Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Theses and Dissertations
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Theses and Dissertations
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Circuit-Splitting the Atom: How the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy Reached Different Conclusions on the Need to Consider Hypothetical Terrorist Attacks under NEPA

Thumbnail
View / Download
455.5 Kb
Date
2014-05-12
Author
Lighty, Ryan K.
Repository Usage Stats
402
views
397
downloads
Abstract
This Paper examines possible explanations for the differing policies of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which adopted a "Ninth Circuit only" approach, and the Department of Energy (DOE), which adopted a single nationwide policy, in response to similar adverse appellate court rulings from the Ninth Circuit imposing the requirement to consider the possible environmental impacts of terrorist acts under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The discussion begins with a general overview of NEPA and the need to examine "reasonably foreseeable" effects of proposed Federal actions. The Paper then provides a brief overview of Federal courts and the effect of adverse circuit court rulings on Federal agencies. The examination then turns to the relevant "proximate cause" case law on intervening criminal and terrorist acts, reviews the Ninth Circuit rulings imposing the NEPA terrorism requirements, and explains how the NRC’s rejection of the Ninth Circuit approach led to a circuit split. Finally, the analysis explores the various legal and pragmatic considerations that likely led NRC and DOE, despite being similarly situated, to adopt different responses to similar adverse rulings. The author concludes that, notwithstanding the possibility of a future Supreme Court decision or Congressional action to clarify the requirements of NEPA, both approaches are workable and serve the unique interests of the respective agencies.
Type
Report
Subject
NEPA
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8627
Citation
Lighty, Ryan K. (2014). Circuit-Splitting the Atom: How the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy Reached Different Conclusions on the Need to Consider Hypothetical Terrorist Attacks under NEPA. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/8627.
Collections
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers
More Info
Show full item record
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Rights for Collection: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University